Top Law Schools

Do you think besides flip flops and geographic preferences, there is reason to choose one over the other? I'm 99.9% set on litigation. Seems like hours will suck regardless.

Anonymous User wrote:Do you think besides flip flops and geographic preferences, there is reason to choose one over the other? I'm 99.9% set on litigation. Seems like hours will suck regardless.

So besides the major differences, what are the differences?

Oops

Getting all lowercase emails from john Quinn sounds like a sweet perk

The .01% chance you decide you hate shitigation is a definite plus for S&C.

sundance95 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Do you think besides flip flops and geographic preferences, there is reason to choose one over the other? I'm 99.9% set on litigation. Seems like hours will suck regardless.

So besides the major differences, what are the differences?

Exactly. That is what I am asking. I like flip flops and fancy shoes, and I have reasons for wanting to be in both locations.

I think location matters a lot less for litigation and I would say with some confidence that Quinn is a better litigation firm than S&C. Hours will probably be similar at both. I'd go with the firm you liked or the city you want to be in more.

Quinn sounds like a singularly unpleasant place to work. But I think you'd learn a lot there. It depends on your personality but it's on my list of places I don't think I would ever work.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Quinn sounds like a singularly unpleasant place to work. But I think you'd learn a lot there. It depends on your personality but it's on my list of places I don't think I would ever work.

I would agree, except the other option is S&C, which also gives a very strong impression of being a singularly unpleasant place to work.

I'd go with Quinn. Stronger reputation in litigation. The people and the hours are terrible at both firms, so might as well go for the prestige. Casual dress is probably nice, too. There are a lot of choices I'd take over either of these, though, and I'd guess the OP has other options he/she should be considering.

Anonymous User wrote:

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Quinn sounds like a singularly unpleasant place to work. But I think you'd learn a lot there. It depends on your personality but it's on my list of places I don't think I would ever work.

I would agree, except the other option is S&C, which also gives a very strong impression of being a singularly unpleasant place to work.

I'd go with Quinn. Stronger reputation in litigation. The people and the hours are terrible at both firms, so might as well go for the prestige. Casual dress is probably nice, too. There are a lot of choices I'd take over either of these, though, and I'd guess the OP has other options he/she should be considering.

I'm OP, and I don't have any other options at the moment.

They're pretty different.

I think you also should look into what types of matters are staffed at Quinn LA. I know that LA first years sometimes work on matters with NY partners (e.g., large financial cases) so if that's something you were looking to avoid by going to LA, be aware you might end up on some of those matters anyway.

S&C would obviously give you far more creature comforts, but I'd be surprised if there was an hours advantage either way.

To me it would come down to (1) do you want to try corp. work? (2) do you want to do litigation relating to finance stuff? (3) if yes to (2), do you want to sue banks or defend them?

(and that isn't a knock, even if it isn't PRESTIGIOUS plaintiff side work, it seems like some people really really enjoy it)